The Bankruptcy Code confers upon debtors or trustees, as the case may be, the power to avoid certain preferential or fraudulent transfers made to creditors within prescribed guidelines and limitations. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico recently addressed the contours of these powers through a recent decision inU.S. Glove v. Jacobs, Adv. No. 21-1009, (Bankr. D.N.M.

In In re Smith, (B.A.P. 10th Cir., Aug. 18, 2020), the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently joined the majority of circuit courts of appeals in finding that a creditor seeking a judgment of nondischargeability must demonstrate that the injury caused by the prepetition debtor was both willful and malicious under Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Factual Background

In a recent decision, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that claim disallowance issues under Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code "travel with" the claim, and not with the claimant. Declining to follow a published district court decision from the same federal district, the bankruptcy court found that section 502(d) applies to disallow a transferred claim regardless of whether the transferee acquired its claim through an assignment or an outright sale. See In re Firestar Diamond, 615 B.R. 161 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Recent insolvencies remind us that, when a seller of goods is unpaid, the question of possession leaps to the foreground. There is little value in a claim against an insolvent buyer for damages or for the price.

InIn re Juarez, 603 B.R. 610 (9th Cir. BAP 2019), the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed a question of first impression in the circuit with respect to property that is exempt from creditor reach: it adopted the view that, under the "new value exception" to the "absolute priority rule," an individual Chapter 11 debtor intending to retain such property need not make a "new value" contribution covering the value of the exemption.

Background

The UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy introduced the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the Bill)¹ into Parliament on 20 May 2020. The Bill is due to proceed through Parliament on an accelerated timetable and is expected to come into force without changes towards the end of June 2020.

In In re Palladino, 942 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2019), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit addressed whether a debtor receives “reasonably equivalent value” in exchange for paying his adult child’s college tuition. The Palladino court answered this question in the negative, thereby contributing to the growing circuit split regarding the avoidability of debtors’ college tuition payments for their adult children as constructively fraudulent transfers.

Background

Zenrock Commodities Trading Pte Ltd is one of the latest additions to the increasing list of commodities traders in Singapore making recent headlines, with financial difficulties and malpractice allegations coming to light. The COVID-19 crisis, oil price volatility and slumping demand are acting as a catalyst, and are affecting a majority of oil majors and traders in Singapore and the region.

In the light of increased volatility across many markets and disruptions to economic activity, parties to transactions that are subject to ISDA Master Agreements¹ will need to think about what strategies they would adopt if an Event of Default occurs with respect to their counterparties.

Choices

This note sets out the circumstances in which a creditor may successfully lift a statutory moratorium against a company in administration in England and Wales, and in Singapore.

English law